Chris Weimer

Yes. It is sometimes considered pejorative. What's your point?

Toto

If you can't see the point, I will stop beating my head against the wall. I think when you use the term, it is intended as an insult.

Chris Weimer

I think you need a new gauge of what is an insult and what is not. :wave:

Toto

I notice that Chris has not made a substantive contribution to this thread since the OP which would indicate that he does not intend his creationism analogy to be an insult.

robto

I was looking for writings about Jesus that identify him as a purely spiritual being, a la Doherty's proposal. Neither of these mentions Jesus at all, so they don't qualify. But thanks for trying.

(The introduction to Shem, by M. Roberge (in Nag Hammadi Library), identifies Soldas as Jesus. But from a quick glance, I don't see why this identification should be made, and even if it is, it still doesn't qualify as a myth of Jesus as a spiritual being.)

GakuseiDon

My use of the word "fringe" in this situation was not meant to be an insult in any way or form.

It might make an interesting thought experiment to name some fringe positions that don't view the mainstream as hopelessly biased against them, then name some that do. Into which groups would you place creationism and mythicism? They would go together AFAICS.

As I said, it highlights a certain way of thinking. An example is your comment over here, where you write:

"Bock can't get out of his evangelical mind frame enough to see the possibilities"

There is nothing in Bock's comment to indicate that his response is because of an "evangelical mind frame". How did you determine that from his answer? If an atheist historicist gave the same response as Bock, what would you put that down to?

The value of the Creationist Analogy is to point out where the mythicist is unfairly lambasting the mainstream for being hopelessly biased. For the mythicist to then point out that the strengths for the mainstream cases of evolution and historicism are different is true but irrelevant.

aa5874

Its creationism and HJ that go together, both need the Christian Bible as their fundamental base. Without the Bible, both fall flat.

Amaleq13

It seems to me that actually pointing out one's opponent's weaknesses is blatantly superior to offering such a contentious and inadequate substitute.

Analogies are neither arguments nor explanations.

When all one is offering is an analogy, it is entirely reasonable to do nothing in response except point out the flaws in the comparison.

Toto

And why would you make that particular division, as opposed to the eye color of the primary proponent? In fact, Creationism and mythicism have different stances in regard to the "mainstream." Creationism treats the issues as a moral one - if science undermines the Bible, morality goes out the windon and people start acting like animals. Creationists turn science into a parody. Most mythicists regard the issue as a simple one of historical interpretation, and think that the mainstream might be convinced - so in that sense, it is not "hopelessly" biased.

Bock could not imagine that Paul's Christ was anyone other than Jesus of Nazareth. (He also upheld the portrait of Paul in Acts, which is an evangelical argument that is hard to support unless you believe that the scriptures were inspired.) I can't imagine an atheist historicist who has looked at the arguments who would have that failure of imagination - even if he or she came to the same conclusion.

Unfair? (:boohoo: ) The mythicist argument is not that the mainstream is hopeless biased - those are your words.

Brother Daniel

My mistake. I re-read only the first round of your exchange with Toto, but I should have re-read further on. I had forgotten that he had made it clear that he was talking about the Gnostic Christian versions of Jesus.